Slashdot Mirror
When Libertarians Attack Free Software
binarybits writes 'I've got a new article analyzing the unfortunate tendency of libertarian and free-market organizations to attack free software. The latest example is a policy analyst at the Heartland Institute who attacks network neutrality regulations by arguing that advocates have 'unwittingly bought into' the 'radical agenda' of the free software movement. I argue that in reality, the free market and free software are entirely compatible, and libertarians are shooting themselves in the foot by antagonizing the free software movement.'
That is because most Libertarians association freedom with greed rather than freedom with responsibility.
OP gives exactly one example, then sees fit to try to drag all Libertarians into this category. Bad, bad OP.
Lakely is obviously ignorant of what most "free" (open source) software is all about, and he has just as obviously been influenced by the more radical free software advocates like Stallman.
But one misguided person is not all Libertarians. Most Libertarians I know are fine with Free and Open Source Software, and in fact some of them actively participate in developing for it. I think OP should retract his over-broad and unfounded generalization, and perhaps even apologize to Libertarians.
So basically you are saying that the government should back out of everything and let corporations take over.
Sounds pretty Republican to me.
A corporation *has* taken over. The government is that corporation.
It employs tens of thousands of people in businesses it has no reason to run. The businesses do their job poorly, and are funded through taxes which people are required to pay.
At least, if the government were limited, people could have some *choice* in which other corporations take over.
at least we're used to it...
Politics by morons.
Seriously? Why the fuck is there a front page story written by some guy I've never heard of, spewing his opinions about Libertarians?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You must be young or an economist. Most people without high school diplomas know more about the economy than economists due. They do not live in reality, only in theory.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The problem is, you don't know what the consequences of monopolies are before they are enabled.
WE have no idea what the consequences of Standard Oil staying as a monopoly because .... well it was ... broken up before we could let the FREE markets compete and bring oh ... you know ... a viable alternative to oil .... say for example .... alcohol fuel. And the resulting lowering of Greenhouse Gases that all the left wing nutjobs are whining about.
No, we don't know the result of letting the MARKET fix the problem (routing around inefficiencies), but instead brought pressure upon government to break it up.
Fast forward a few decades, and now we have another monopoly in place. This one is called "Microsoft". I would dare say that if Microsoft was NOT a monopoly then LINUX would never have existed except as a "research project". Same with Open Office.
You see, monopolies are part of free markets, and eventually, if we have patience enough, will end up dying under their own behemoth weight and baggage.
When we break up a natural monopoly, we'll never know what fantastic alternative will arise to supplant it. Cable gives rise to Satellite TV. If the cost of cable was low, satellite tv would never have existed. The high cost of cable provided the means for that alternative.
My point being this, we are extremely short sighted in our view of monopolies. Yes, I don't like them any more than anyone else. And like everyone else, I'll simply use them until I have to route around it. And I'll reward the person(s) who create an alternative to monopoly.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.